- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Gnome 3 Will Bring Users Back To Ubuntu: Top 6 Gnome Extensions
|
|
|
Comments (33)
13 earlier comments in the full thread.
I think it's a mistake to conflate the actions of the KDE devs with those of the Gnome devs.
The KDE devs did something significantly different, for different reasons, and were never in the Gnome dev mode of "We know the One True Way a Desktop Environment should be set up, We're creating this new DE to enforce our revelation on our users -- those who don't approve are just too ignorant to know what's best for them."
The KDE devs essentially said, "We're going to have to change our tool-kit, so while we're at it lets incorporate some new ideas. We think we know a better way, but we won't prevent users from being able to set it up as seems best to them." The transition wasn't handled well (mostly a communication issue over defining "ready" vs "beta", and inadequate support of the old software over the course of the transition.) They engaged in some justification, but did show a commitment to listen to and respect the views and needs of their users.
Just to be clear: I am not a KDE fan-boy -- I'm not even a KDE user. My boxes are all older hardware mostly or entirely assembled out of used parts. KDE has always seemed quite nice, but also just too heavy on my systems (at least whenever I tried it -- I may have missed the odd window in which specific versions of KDE and my specific hardware would have been a better match).
So while I am moving away from Gnome, to XFCE (which I already use anyways) and/or lighter environments (Fluxbox/Openbox? ) rather than to KDE anytime soon, it's not because I feel the KDE team has behaved like the Gnome team -- dictatorial, unreliable, and closed-minded.
The KDE devs did something significantly different, for different reasons, and were never in the Gnome dev mode of "We know the One True Way a Desktop Environment should be set up, We're creating this new DE to enforce our revelation on our users -- those who don't approve are just too ignorant to know what's best for them."
The KDE devs essentially said, "We're going to have to change our tool-kit, so while we're at it lets incorporate some new ideas. We think we know a better way, but we won't prevent users from being able to set it up as seems best to them." The transition wasn't handled well (mostly a communication issue over defining "ready" vs "beta", and inadequate support of the old software over the course of the transition.) They engaged in some justification, but did show a commitment to listen to and respect the views and needs of their users.
Just to be clear: I am not a KDE fan-boy -- I'm not even a KDE user. My boxes are all older hardware mostly or entirely assembled out of used parts. KDE has always seemed quite nice, but also just too heavy on my systems (at least whenever I tried it -- I may have missed the odd window in which specific versions of KDE and my specific hardware would have been a better match).
So while I am moving away from Gnome, to XFCE (which I already use anyways) and/or lighter environments (Fluxbox/Openbox? ) rather than to KDE anytime soon, it's not because I feel the KDE team has behaved like the Gnome team -- dictatorial, unreliable, and closed-minded.
@BernardSwiss, in my interaction with several kde devs, one thing I got was a lack of willngness to listen to users.
Grishnakh
Oh goody a pointless desktop flamewar. It is my considered opinion after 11 years of linux use that desktop preference is highly individual so strong assertions of superiority of one over the other are not really very productive.
I happen to have tried the following desktops recently after losing patience with Unity:
MATE (forked gnome 2); Gnome 3 fallback; KDE 4.7; XFCE; LXDE; Gnome-shell with extensions.
My preference list is
1) Gnome 3 fallback
2) Gnome-shell with extensions.
3) MATE
4) XFCE
5) KDE 4.7
6) LXDE
7) Unity
I bet that some other person would order this list completely differently which is my point really that preferences are highly individual.
My point about both kde and gnome developers is arrogance and a tin ear about users. KDE4.0-4.2 should have been clearly labelled alpha or beta software. They weren't due to hubris. Similarly gnome-shell when first released was horrible. Many clicks to do basics and no tweaking.
Incidentally my opinion in this matter trumps yours because Linus Torvalds agrees with me j/k. (look it up)
Oh goody a pointless desktop flamewar. It is my considered opinion after 11 years of linux use that desktop preference is highly individual so strong assertions of superiority of one over the other are not really very productive.
I happen to have tried the following desktops recently after losing patience with Unity:
MATE (forked gnome 2); Gnome 3 fallback; KDE 4.7; XFCE; LXDE; Gnome-shell with extensions.
My preference list is
1) Gnome 3 fallback
2) Gnome-shell with extensions.
3) MATE
4) XFCE
5) KDE 4.7
6) LXDE
7) Unity
I bet that some other person would order this list completely differently which is my point really that preferences are highly individual.
My point about both kde and gnome developers is arrogance and a tin ear about users. KDE4.0-4.2 should have been clearly labelled alpha or beta software. They weren't due to hubris. Similarly gnome-shell when first released was horrible. Many clicks to do basics and no tweaking.
Incidentally my opinion in this matter trumps yours because Linus Torvalds agrees with me j/k. (look it up)
@montezuma, you are of course correct. My list would be
MATE
KDE 4.7 +
XFCE
LXDE
GNOME 3 Fallback
GNOME 3 shell with extensions
Unity
although to be fair the last 3 are there only because they are part of the discussion.
On the other hand, on a tablet I think I would definately choose Unity over GNOME 3 Shell
MATE
KDE 4.7 +
XFCE
LXDE
GNOME 3 Fallback
GNOME 3 shell with extensions
Unity
although to be fair the last 3 are there only because they are part of the discussion.
On the other hand, on a tablet I think I would definately choose Unity over GNOME 3 Shell
The KDE devs did start out trying to clean up the code base for KDE4, and update their "desktop paradigm" (whatever that is). The bad reactions from users when they announced an un-ready 4.0 caught them by surprise, and they dug in their heels.
The Gnome devs couldn't be bothered to learn from the KDE devs' mistakes, so the ensuing bad reactions from/to users was that much worse.
My WM: Sawfish.
The Gnome devs couldn't be bothered to learn from the KDE devs' mistakes, so the ensuing bad reactions from/to users was that much worse.
My WM: Sawfish.
@montezuma, @tracyanne,
And my list is:
KDE 4.7.x Plasma
To me, it is the best DE (Device Environment) since it has the applications and classical active interfaces for Desktops, netbooks, tablets, and Mobile.
I personally see no reason to go with anything else unless I have to.
And my list is:
KDE 4.7.x Plasma
To me, it is the best DE (Device Environment) since it has the applications and classical active interfaces for Desktops, netbooks, tablets, and Mobile.
I personally see no reason to go with anything else unless I have to.
gus3 wrote:The KDE devs did start out trying to clean up the code base for KDE4, and update their "desktop paradigm" (whatever that is).
It was more than that; KDE4 was an entire rewrite of most of the KDE codebase. Inevitably, there were a lot of growing pains, and it was definitely called "ready" much too early. You don't do a full rewrite of a large software project without having problems, but there were definitely mistakes in how it was all handled, and I think they've learned a lot from the experience. Apparently, however, the Gnome devs didn't learn a thing from it as they repeated many of the same mistakes, only with a worse attitude ("we are experts in user interfaces and you need to use your DE the way we think is best!"). KDE's problem was just that it was immature, buggy, and missing features which were later reimplemented. Those of us who held off on the upgrade and stuck with 3.5.10 for a full year or more missed out on all this annoyance. I don't think I finally moved to KDE4 until 4.3 came out; I saw all the complaints and decided to stick with what worked until they ironed out most of the problems.
> KDE's problem was just that it was immature, buggy, and missing features which were later reimplemented.
Well, that and the fact that the dev's objected to users telling them this.
Well, that and the fact that the dev's objected to users telling them this.
Was?
Gnome 2 had no trouble with hiding panels, neither does XFCE or LXDE.
Gnome 2 had no trouble with hiding panels, neither does XFCE or LXDE.
Quoting:Gnome 2 had no trouble with hiding panels, neither does XFCE or LXDE.
I am not sure what you mean by that, I have no problem hiding the panels, yes multiple panels.
Here are the settings available for KDE 4.7.3 Panels:
Panel Alignment: Left, Right, Center. Panel can be on bottom, Left, Top, or right screen edge.
Panel visibility: Always Visible, Auto-hide, Windows can cover, windows go below
"Windows can cover" is my preferred setting. Best of all choices. It is always visible until a window overlaps to covers the panel. Yet, panel pops up automatically visible when the cursor is moved to hover over panel area.
@ Fetoosh, KDE4 is where it is because it has everything I need, plus 1 thing I find so annoying that I can't use it productively. Whithout that one thing it would be top of my list, and I would, of course, be using it. MATE (GNOME 2) has all the elements, some don't look as nice as the KDE4 implementation, but the petty annoyance isn't there so I choose MATE over KDE4. which is a pity, because that one thing is what stops me from returning to KDE as my desktop.
@Fettoosh,
Wish I could figure it out, too. But, it's been across 3 laptops (an HP, Samsung, & ASUS), so I think I can rule out driver issues.
If I could find a way to make the miscreant panel reappear, I'd try the settings you use. But, then again, XFCE is so rock stable, it's not a 'must solve right now'.
Wish I could figure it out, too. But, it's been across 3 laptops (an HP, Samsung, & ASUS), so I think I can rule out driver issues.
If I could find a way to make the miscreant panel reappear, I'd try the settings you use. But, then again, XFCE is so rock stable, it's not a 'must solve right now'.
Quoting:If I could find a way to make the miscreant panel reappear, I'd try the settings you use. But, then again, XFCE is so rock stable, it's not a 'must solve right now'.
It is easy to make a panel reappear, just create a new one. If that doesn't work, then there must be something wrong with the KDE setting in .kde file. rename it to something else, log out then log back in again and KDE should create a fresh new .kde for you. That shouldn't take long and should fix the problem permanently. It is well known that changes in KDE from one version to another tend to cause problems and the best way to fix them is to start by recreating a new .kde file.
But, if you are satisfied and happy with XFCE, by all means don't change unless you see a need.
Quoting:KDE4 is where it is because it has everything I need, plus 1 thing I find so annoying that I can't use it productively. Whithout that one thing it would be top of my list,
@TA,
I probably would do the same if KDE fails me. It hasn't yet.
The KDE team try to add every feature possible to please everyone, and we all know that no one has ever been successful in pleasing everyone.
Quoting:The KDE team try to add every feature possible to please everyone..
There is one feature they haven't yet added and that is the ability to turn that annoyance off. So no they haven't yet attempted to please every one.
I've mentioned the annoyance before in other posts. So I think you are aware of what it is.
I just finished my third try with gnome 3. This time was the longest. I spent the month of November using it daily.
I first tried with a beta version and spent less than 3 weeks total using it. I figured that it was beta and that the fact that the 'shutdown' option missing and the configuration options missing were due to the unfinished state. Also the worst feature was the use flow, the steps needed to get anything done. Having to disrupt your work flow to go to the activities window and then go to applications to start an application was ridiculously cumbersome.
In the beta version, I had figured that the application menu and any shortcuts had not yet been implemented. I had read that one of the main goals of Gnome 3 was to reduce distraction in your work. Instead, the beta seemed to be designed to actually increase distraction and disruption of work flow.
Why would anyone interested in reduced distraction force users to leave the desktop to the activities window, and then leave the activities window to go to the applications window just to launch an application? Why did these things even need an entire window? In the old desktop model 'activities' was a very small list of things that were running displayed in the panel. 'Applications' was a drop down menu that originated in the panel and took up only as much room as needed, opening sub-panels as your search got deeper. This old design was much less disruptive than the beta version of an entire window devoted to what used to be three applets in a panel that could auto hide.
I was amazed when I saw these still missing in the 3.0 release and that the use flow was actually by design! If this was supposed to be an improved work flow, I find it hard to even comprehend how the people who work like this actually work.
When Linus Torvalds described the interface as 'insane' I was in complete agreement. The complete lack of denial by fans of the new design, frankly, baffled me. I still don't understand how they actually use it and feel it is better.
During my second try of Gnome 3, with the release, I kept count of how often I had to leave the desktop and enter the activities menu. This is the absolute worst part of the design. A complete disruption of work flow, shifting the user completely off of the desktop and into another window. Kind of like Biff Tannen slapping George McFly on the side of the head in the movie Back to the Future.
I averaged going to the activities window over 100 times per day. I was amazed at the inefficient design.
I spent the entire month of November using gnome 3.2. With extensions, it is becoming tolerable. You can now see what windows you have open without leaving the desktop. You can also add an applications menu so you do not have leave the desktop in order to launch an application. You also do not need to leave the desktop in order switch workspaces. Extensions also bring back a saner way to switch applications.
I averaged entering the activities window about 40 times a day. This was a vast improvement.
While Biff Tannen slapping you on the side of the head yelling 'McFly' 40 times a day is an improvement over having it happen 100 times a day, it is still unacceptable to me.
I'll try again with gnome 3.4.
Until then, Jeff will be happy to hear that I have installed bodhi linux in that partition and am spending December learning my way around.
Thanks to the community of volunteers, gnome 3 is overcoming some of its worst design flaws.
I first tried with a beta version and spent less than 3 weeks total using it. I figured that it was beta and that the fact that the 'shutdown' option missing and the configuration options missing were due to the unfinished state. Also the worst feature was the use flow, the steps needed to get anything done. Having to disrupt your work flow to go to the activities window and then go to applications to start an application was ridiculously cumbersome.
In the beta version, I had figured that the application menu and any shortcuts had not yet been implemented. I had read that one of the main goals of Gnome 3 was to reduce distraction in your work. Instead, the beta seemed to be designed to actually increase distraction and disruption of work flow.
Why would anyone interested in reduced distraction force users to leave the desktop to the activities window, and then leave the activities window to go to the applications window just to launch an application? Why did these things even need an entire window? In the old desktop model 'activities' was a very small list of things that were running displayed in the panel. 'Applications' was a drop down menu that originated in the panel and took up only as much room as needed, opening sub-panels as your search got deeper. This old design was much less disruptive than the beta version of an entire window devoted to what used to be three applets in a panel that could auto hide.
I was amazed when I saw these still missing in the 3.0 release and that the use flow was actually by design! If this was supposed to be an improved work flow, I find it hard to even comprehend how the people who work like this actually work.
When Linus Torvalds described the interface as 'insane' I was in complete agreement. The complete lack of denial by fans of the new design, frankly, baffled me. I still don't understand how they actually use it and feel it is better.
During my second try of Gnome 3, with the release, I kept count of how often I had to leave the desktop and enter the activities menu. This is the absolute worst part of the design. A complete disruption of work flow, shifting the user completely off of the desktop and into another window. Kind of like Biff Tannen slapping George McFly on the side of the head in the movie Back to the Future.
I averaged going to the activities window over 100 times per day. I was amazed at the inefficient design.
I spent the entire month of November using gnome 3.2. With extensions, it is becoming tolerable. You can now see what windows you have open without leaving the desktop. You can also add an applications menu so you do not have leave the desktop in order to launch an application. You also do not need to leave the desktop in order switch workspaces. Extensions also bring back a saner way to switch applications.
I averaged entering the activities window about 40 times a day. This was a vast improvement.
While Biff Tannen slapping you on the side of the head yelling 'McFly' 40 times a day is an improvement over having it happen 100 times a day, it is still unacceptable to me.
I'll try again with gnome 3.4.
Until then, Jeff will be happy to hear that I have installed bodhi linux in that partition and am spending December learning my way around.
Thanks to the community of volunteers, gnome 3 is overcoming some of its worst design flaws.
Quoting:I've mentioned the annoyance before in other posts. So I think you are aware of what it is.
IIRC, that annoyance is auto re-sizing of icons in Dolphin's panel. It is annoying to me too but not enough to make me abandon KDE.
If that is really the case for you, one workaround I found accidently a while ago would be to have both Folders & Places selected under View=>Panels, and make sure the Places pane height is reduced to just fit all its items. I found out that this restricts any auto re-sizing of icons.
@Fettoosh, I'll have a play with that.
Unfortunately for me it's akin to someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard.
Quoting:It is annoying to me too but not enough to make me abandon KDE.
Unfortunately for me it's akin to someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard.
Quoting:Unfortunately for me it's akin to someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard.
I understand how you feel, just reading your statement makes me shudder
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Perhaps. But, over the 3 years I've tried several distributions, each with the latest and greatest version of kde, and each and every time I find kde losing auto-hiding panels.
This may seem unreasonable to the kde developers, but when working with a 13 inch (or smaller) screen, auto-hiding panels is NOT optional.